• Lam Research Corp. v. Inpria Corp.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00033 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the ’888 Publication anticipates the claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may institute review, however, only upon a determination that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, for reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “The test for written description support “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Specification must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventors invented what is claimed, and “reasonably” convey to those skilled in the art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. The “level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “The test for written description support “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Specification must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventors invented what is claimed, and “reasonably” convey to those skilled in the art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. The “level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner

    “Even if we accept that the Examiner previously considered the effective filing date of claims 1–12, we determine that Petitioner identifies a material error by the Examiner. Id. We agree with Petitioner that “the Examiner never questioned the priority claim made by” the applicant during prosecution. Pet. 63. Further, the Examiner did not issue any rejection concerning whether the application that led to the ’564 patent supports the challenged claims. Id.; see id. at 63 n.20 (citing Ex. 1007, 489). Against that backdrop, we find Petitioner shows sufficiently that the Examiner materially erred by accepting the applicant’s priority date claim, as shown by our analysis above, and, as a result, materially erred by failing to appreciate the prior art status of the ’888 Publication, which Petitioner has demonstrated by a reasonable likelihood, on this record, anticipates the challenged claims. Id. at 63. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny review under Section 325(d) with respect to the ground that asserts anticipation by the ’888 Publication.10” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,823,564
• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01215 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 16, 18, and 31 are unpatentable as anticipated by Yu; claims 1–4, 7, and 31 are also anticipated by Stewart.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties disagree about the appropriate definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan and, in particular, whether that artisan would have had experience or familiarity with the “processing of thermoformable polymer sheets” to form “orthodontic and dental appliances.” Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 14); see Pet. 14–15 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). Patent Owner’s definition is supported by the plain wording of challenged claim 18, which recites a dental appliance. Resp. 16 (citing Pet. 14 n.1); Ex. 1001, 26:50–52. The ’263 patent, moreover, includes an “extensive discussion of dental appliances and the unexpectedly good properties of dental aligners” thermoformed from polymeric sheets. Resp. 16; Ex. 1001, 1:20–47, 4:57–5:10, 5:26–6:6, 6:39–43, 10:25–51, 11:30–48, 12:22–24, 13:25–29, 21:1–6, 24:2–3, 24:30–57; see id. at 15:23– 38 (describing the thermoforming process for making dental appliances).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “about 60A to about 85D” when employed as the two soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer composition (id. ¶ 109) does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition in which the single soft, inner layer also is within that same hardness range (id. ¶ 110). Critically, when discussing the soft, inner layer of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition, the ’176 application nowhere indicates that the soft inner layer must have “a hardness of from about 60A to about 85D.” Id. ¶ 109 (discussing a prior art embodiment); see id. ¶¶ 7, 33–35, 109–110. Even if the hardness limitation of the challenged claims would have been obvious from the relied-upon disclosure in the ’176 application (id. ¶ 109), as a matter of law, that circumstance is insufficient to establish a filing date through that application. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Pet. 21 (quoting that controlling precedent). Each of Patent Owner’s countervailing arguments is unpersuasive because, at best, Patent Owner attempts to show that it would have been obvious to import––from the description of the soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft embodiment––a limitation not expressly imposed on the soft inner layer in the inventive hard-soft-hard embodiment. Ex. 2001 ¶ 109; Resp. 35–42. A showing of obviousness is not enough under the controlling precedent cited by Petitioner. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “about 60A to about 85D” when employed as the two soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer composition (id. ¶ 109) does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition in which the single soft, inner layer also is within that same hardness range (id. ¶ 110). Critically, when discussing the soft, inner layer of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition, the ’176 application nowhere indicates that the soft inner layer must have “a hardness of from about 60A to about 85D.” Id. ¶ 109 (discussing a prior art embodiment); see id. ¶¶ 7, 33–35, 109–110. Even if the hardness limitation of the challenged claims would have been obvious from the relied-upon disclosure in the ’176 application (id. ¶ 109), as a matter of law, that circumstance is insufficient to establish a filing date through that application. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Pet. 21 (quoting that controlling precedent). Each of Patent Owner’s countervailing arguments is unpersuasive because, at best, Patent Owner attempts to show that it would have been obvious to import––from the description of the soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft embodiment––a limitation not expressly imposed on the soft inner layer in the inventive hard-soft-hard embodiment. Ex. 2001 ¶ 109; Resp. 35–42. A showing of obviousness is not enough under the controlling precedent cited by Petitioner. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For the above reasons, we determine that the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’176 application because the application does not indicate that the inventors had possession of the hardness limitation of the claimed invention. See Reply 7–13 (Petitioner’s arguments on this issue). On the full trial record, we find that the earliest effective filing date to which the challenged claims are entitled is December 18, 2019, the filing date of the ’256 application from which the ’263 patent issued. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22). Every challenged claim recites, or inherits via dependence, the hardness limitation “of from about 60A to about 85D” for the inner elastomeric layers of the inventive hard-soft-hard multilayer composition. Ex. 1001, 25:2–9 (independent claim 1), 26:1–8 (independent claim 11), 27:49–51 (independent claim 31). In view of our determination that the earliest effective filing date to which the challenged claims are entitled is December 18, 2019, we agree with Petitioner that Yu (Example 1) and Stewart (Example 2) qualify as prior art against the challenged claims. Pet. 43–49 (Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and evidence on point).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,870,263 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,870,263
• Apple Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00937 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the relied-upon Slivka Appendices qualified as prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner’s invalidity contentions rely, in part, on disclosures from the Slivka Appendices, which Petitioner asserts qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Pet. 9. Because Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the material it relies on was available as prior art at the time of the invention, we determine that the Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 18

  • BurdenDenied

    “We determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Our determination is based on finding that Petitioner’s challenge relies on appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) and insufficient indication on the record that the appendices have been incorporated into the ’695 patent, and that as a result, the relied-upon appendices do not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Appendices (Ex. 1005, 69–245) missing from the ’695 patent (Ex. 1004) as published because the Slivka Appendices were not incorporated by reference into the ’695 patent specification. Thus, there is no sufficient indication on this record to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are available prior art for an inter partes review, as they are neither part of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); see Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper No. 29 at 12–13 (December 20, 2019) (precedential) (discussing the standard at institution for a showing regarding the public availability of non-patent art). On this record Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the Slivka Appendices, as separately-filed documents should be accorded their stamped “DEC 6 1996,” date for prior art purposes. As Patent Owner correctly explains, “the rule requiring publication of applications ‘after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought’ was not effective until November 29, 2000.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing 65 Fed. Reg. 57,024; 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)). For applications filed before November 29, 2000, as here, “the prosecution history of an application remain[ed] confidential until the application itself issue[d] as a patent.” Hyatt v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 797 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The current record, at most, might support a likelihood that the Slivka Appendices could be accorded the date they were first made publicly available, which is May 9, 2000, the date the ’695 patent issued. See 37 C.F.R. 1.11 (a) (“After a patent has been issued or a statutory invention registration has been published, the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the case in the file of the patent or statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained by paying the fees therefore.”). As Patent Owner points out, however, this is “at least thirteen months after the ’545 patent’s effective filing date,” i.e., April 26, 1999 (based on a claim for priority to, inter alia, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/131,083). Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 1001, code (60), 1:13–15. In addition, Petitioner only presents a case for availability of the Slivka reference under pre-AIA § 102(e). On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the Slivka Appendices are “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Accordingly, the relied-upon Slivka Appendices do not qualify as prior art under § 102(e) as Petitioner asserts. Pet. 9.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,369,545
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00848 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 41 is not shown …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 18 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52, EPRC 1:32. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “a semiconductor chip” (id. at 9:66) where “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Resp. 14) of “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor LED chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 53 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 18 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’770 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 16. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’770 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 15

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Delaware held, with respect to related U.S. Patent 6,465,961, construed “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1024, 15–18). Petitioner responds that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1. We note that the language of claim 18 does not precisely match the language the District Court considered, it is substantively the same. The record supports a construction very similar to the construction the District Court adopts, and we reference the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 1024, 15– 18. We, thus, construe claim 18’s recitation that “said semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as referring to “a semiconductor LED chip that is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 21. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 12–13. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,634,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,634,770
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00129 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, 85–86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In the Reply, Petitioner uses the Krames declaration (Ex. 1028) to argue, for example, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used a lower amperage than the 1.5 A dc that Patent Owner’s Response focuses on. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 22). This use of the Krames declaration is timely because it responds to an argument Patent Owner makes in the Patent Owner Response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in . . . patent owner response.”). As to relevancy and whether the Krames declaration is applicable to the facts of this case, the issues at hand are (1) whether or not a person having ordinary skill would have had reason to use the Krames LED with Begemann with a reasonable expectation of success and (2) whether or not the Krames LED is capable of outputting light at greater than about 40 milliwatts. Again, we emphasize that claim 21 does not recite a method where the LED within the recited semiconductor light source actually outputs greater than about 40 milliwatts. The Krames declaration is relevant to the facts of this case because the declaration has bearing on whether or not a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Krames reference’s LED with Begemann’s lightbulb design. See, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 22. Patent Owner argues that evidence must be relevant to motivation to combine “an LED chip from the Krames article (operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output)” but claim 21 has no “operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output” requirement. What is relevant is that Krames discloses a single chip that has the capability of outputting more or less light depending on operating conditions. Pet. Opp. 3; see also Ex. 1008, 8 (providing that Figure 12 of the Krames reference is described as illustrating “[l]ight output vs. current characteristic of a blue … 1x1 mm2 AlGaInN LED in a power package, compared to a conventional AlGaInN LED in a 5 mm lamp a package”). Because claim 21 does not require actually running the recited LED at any particular wattage or amperage, it is appropriate for the Krames declaration to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have considered using the Krames LED with Begemann at high amperage by explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using the exact same Krames LED with Begemann at a low amperage instead and that at this lower amperage the Krames LED would generate an amount of heat that would be easily dissipated by Begemann’s lamp while still providing an optical output of “greater than about 40 milliwatts” as recited by claim 21. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 8). The fact that the Krames LED is configured to run at the high amperage if desired for a different application does not negate the rationale for combining the Krames LED to run at a lower amperage.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s claim construction is well-supported by the record including the reasoning provided by the California and Delaware district courts. Ex. 2002, 19–21 (California district court explaining why the “reflective layers” must be distinct layers based on how claim 8 is structured and also explaining why the amount of reflection must be non-negligible); Ex. 2003, 2, 13 (Delaware district court explaining why reflection has to be more than negligible but need not reflect more light than the light absorbed or transmitted). We, thus, agree that “first and a second reflective layers . . . 10 Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction combines various statements made by the district courts into one statement. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2002, 19–21; Ex. 2003, 2, 13). serving to reflect light emitted by said active layer” means that the “first and second reflective layers are distinct from each other and reflect more than negligible light.” We further note that the preponderance of the evidence supports that as little as one percent light reflectance is “non-negligible” in this context. Reply 4; also Ex. 1032, 188:7–14 (Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Shealy, testifying that reflection “on the order of one percent” would be more than negligible); see also Tr. 53 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing that Dr. Shealy opined that “three percent reflection is enough to be non-negligible”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00123 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, and 85–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 13 We note that Dr. Lebby does not directly state when the Proceedings were widely available. See Sur-Reply 14. evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 25. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 13–14. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted

    “7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Signify North America Corp. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00214 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted

    “The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.11 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date12 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner

    “Conclusion Factor one weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution, factor three weighs against exercising our discretion to deny institution or is neutral, factors six and seven are neutral or weakly favor discretionary denial, and the remaining factors are neutral. The balance of the General Plastic factors thus weighs against exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the General Plastic factors.” slip op. at 24

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Here, we decline to exercise discretion to deny this Petition based upon multiple Petitions for three reasons. First, as we explain in Section III(H) of this decision, the Petition is strong on the merits, and Patent Owner has, at this stage, offered little argument refuting the merits. Second, Patent Owner’s burden to respond to both petitions is lessened by Patent Owner’s familiarity with much of the prior art at issue. As Patent Owner emphasizes, all or nearly all of the art in the Petitions was previously raised either during prior examination or in other inter partes reviews. Indeed, it seems likely that, if the Cree IPR (or related follow on IPRs) proceeds to a decision on the merits, there may be little left unresolved for the instant Petition. Institution here, however, provides Petitioner an opportunity to challenge the ’961 patent based on Krames in the event that the IPR based on Cree does not reach a decision on the merits. Third, while the two petitions present different invalidity grounds (addressing the same claims) and, as explained above, are not wholly redundant, the two parallel petitions have a great deal of overlap. Prelim. Resp. 26 (arguing that the two petitions are “redundant”). Because portions of the petitions are similar, this also reduces Patent Owner’s burden to respond. Thus, based on the totality of specific circumstances unique to these two petitions, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution based on parallel petitions.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47– 49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent is hereby instituted with respect to all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 52

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Signify North America Corp. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the §103 obviousness challenges.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Conclusion as to claim 21 Based on the evidence in the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura teaches or suggests all elements of claim 21 and that Petitioner sufficiently shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura. b. Dependent Claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 Petitioner accounts for the limitations recited in claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 (which depend from claim 21). Pet. 6, 51–71. Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that each element of claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura and shows reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 are obvious in view of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura.” slip op. at 45

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree, however, that Petitioner fails to show material error. Rather, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the outcome of the reexamination hinged on Patent Owner’s representation that the prior art did not teach LED chips “configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1014, 238–239 (Patent Owner’s statement in file history); see also Ex. 1014, 159 (examiner explaining that claims are found patentable based on Patent Owner’s argument that the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is not “taught or suggested by any reference currently relied on”). Petitioner then explains in detail why Patent Owner’s representation, and the Examiner’s resulting conclusion, was in error. Pet. 20–24. Petitioner’s explanation as to why Begemann, the cited art, actually taught the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is supported by the evidence of record sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–93, 141–144 (Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Jokerst, explaining why the references suggest the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation when a correct calculation is applied).” slip op. at 20

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner

    “the presently cited art at the time a different petitioner filed the Cree IPR. Prelim. Resp. 27. We note, however, that this factor also includes considering whether the prior art relied on in the later petition “could have been found with reasonable diligence.” General Plastic, slip op. at 20. Although the cited references easily could have been found by reviewing the ’961 patent’s file history, it is less clear that the key alleged error in Patent Owner’s representations concerning the teachings of those references would have been readily apparent. As such, this factor is neutral. 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; Patent Owner argues that Petitioner used the Board’s institution decision (instituting trial) in the Cree IPR as a roadmap for its petitions. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner, however, presents no factual evidence merely result from the strength of references raised in prior reexamination rather than copying from one petition to another. The record lacks evidence directly establishing how or why Petitioner came to select the evidence the Petition relies upon, and we decline to speculate. to support this point, for example, instances in the Petition that facially support a finding that the arguments presented in the Petition track the analysis in the Board’s prior institution decision. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the road-mapping concern is either not relevant or is less relevant when the earlier IPR was instituted. Reply 1–2; see also General Plastic, slip op. at 17–18 (explaining that factor 3 is directed to road-mapping concerns). This is not a multiple-bites-of-an-apple situation where the second bite is modified after the first bite fails. This factor weighs against discretionary denial or is neutral.” slip op. at 24

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. The indicia also suggest that the paper was published by an established publisher—SPIE (the international society for optics and photonics). As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.10 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date11 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.